CLACs

I also say "lack" and "clack."

When sending messages in battle, speed is important.
One-syllable Clack is faster than See-Lac.
Besides, See-Lac might be heard as "See The Lac."

So Lac, Clack, and Co-Lac.

HTM

Jonathan_S wrote:
Oddly while I also pronounce LAC as "lack" CLAC becomes "clack" (like "click and clack")

[snip - htm]

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:I also say "lack" and "clack."

When sending messages in battle, speed is important.
One-syllable Clack is faster than See-Lac.
Besides, See-Lac might be heard as "See The Lac."

So Lac, Clack, and Co-Lac.

HTM

Jonathan_S wrote:
Oddly while I also pronounce LAC as "lack" CLAC becomes "clack" (like "click and clack")

[snip - htm]

I'm afraid the official version is "sea-lack."


Frankly, I can't think of any circumstances under which someone would say "see the LAC" or "see a LAC" and have it confused with someone saying "C-LAC" simply because people aren't going to be seeing LACs with their naked eyes (or even most optical sensors) at engagement ranges. Bit of gnat-straining here, I think.

runsforcelery wrote:I'm afraid the official version is "sea-lack."

Well, given that it's in space and there are no large bodies of water around, I can see why.

Admittedly, until reading RFC's post, I used the "clack" pronounciation as it's slightly easier to say.
And harder to confuse with "Slack", which is what no military force (except possibly the Sollies) deems acceptable.

...um, will it be a hard or soft C in the hopefully-inevitable film?

runsforcelery wrote:
I'm afraid the official version is "sea-lack."

Yup, you are the author, but you forgot that your books need to align with reality. Reality is that people are lazy.

CLACK is easier to say than See-LACK. 1 verses two syllables. Just as everyone's name contracts from the longer version to the shorter version. While, my name is Brian, no one calls me this. It is always Bri. My brothers name is Nathan, but no one calls him that. It is always Nate. Kimberly becomes Kim. Etc etc. Names of persons, places, things always morph into the shortest form in the common vernacular(slang).

Some nameless first space lord might wish have it said a certain way, but the folks who have to use said contractions, communications officers, etc in a pressure situation will default to the simplest, quickest method.

I'm afraid the official version is "sea-lack."


Frankly, I can't think of any circumstances under which someone would say "see the LAC" or "see a LAC" and have it confused with someone saying "C-LAC" simply because people aren't going to be seeing LACs with their naked eyes (or even most optical sensors) at engagement ranges. Bit of gnat-straining here, I think. [/quote]


As a retired USN Blue Shirt, I can see some "unofficial" versions in use similar to the current Navy official Amphibious Assault Ship -- commonly referred to as a "Gator Freighter" or a little less derisively "Baby Flat-top".
C-LAC may be referred to as LAC-eys by those who stand in the wall. LAC crews will still be referred to (as currently) as Squadron-dales.
A "bit" more seriously, much as the early USN CV's transitioned from a CA / CL hull to a CB hull and with the Midway class to a BB hull, the Manty / Grayson CLAC will develop from a DN to a SD hull for capacity.
The Forestall class CV's originally had Terriers on them before BPDMS and SeaSparrow were developed.
Enterprise (my old ship) even was planned for a bank of 3 Polaris missiles.
Basicly, since Coral Sea and Midway (the battles), the carriers offensive arm is what it carries. Counter missiles and PDLC's are a future analog to SeaSparrow / RAM, R2D2 and the currently developing/deploying Anti-missile laser and rail guns.
The carrier's self-defense is for what gets past the task force screen.

-- Stewart / retired twigit

crewdude48 wrote:



As a side note, what is with your thing with frigates? The Honorverse navy's define a frigate as "the smallest vessel that can carry both a hyperdrive and some weapons." If you upsize it beyond that, it becomes an anemic destroyer. In order to make it useful for anything other than picking on merchies, a ship has to be a destroyer in order to fit in everything it needs. Pretty soon it will need to be the size of an old cruiser.

From what you have said it appears you are in love with the title "frigate," and not the class itself. If that is the case, just go through the books with some white out and a pen and change every mention of DD to FF and destroyer to frigate. Or, actually with any class you want. If the title is all you want, it shouldn't matter what it is attached to. Everything a FF could do, a DD can do better. Better sensers and more drone storage for recon, better and more missiles for attack, and better missile defense for both survival and working with the wall of battle.

True in many ways. and for a couple of reasons

1: Every family member I know of in the past 200+ years who has served in a navy, and not been in their navy's air arm has served on a frigate at some point in their career. The same can't be said for any other class of ship

2 Also frigates were the either the focus of, or play key roles in a number of my favorite historical fiction and science fiction novels. Plus I did a lot of space wargaming and playing space opera roleplaying games when I was younger with frigates playing key roles in both hobbies.

As for editing out the term destroyer and replacing it with frigate IMO that would be disrespectful to RFC. I may disagree with him on the issue, and I would be happy if he changed his mind but its his universe and story to write as he sees fit not mine.

And I kind of see where he is coming from. The Frigates in the Honorverse seem to be space going versions of the late 16th century Spanish allied Dunkirker frigates based on what we've seen of their use, and users in the case of the Nat Turner and John Brown classes plus the overall description of their limitations.

What I still don't understand though is what caused the change from them having a role in a modern navy alongside destroyers to them being utterly obsolete and replaced by destroyers except for in the fleets that can't afford to replace them.

Whatever change or development rendered them pointless to a Navy like the RMN has to be fairly recent because Honor was posted to a frigate in 1882 pd so logically whatever happened to make them become completely obsolete to the RMN either occurred in the eighteen years between Honor being posted to the HMS Osprey and On Basilisk Station beginning or at least the retirement of frigates from RMN service was not finished until 1882 or later. In either case it has to be a fairly recent development in the setting when the main series begins.

Roguevictory wrote:Whatever change or development rendered them pointless to a Navy like the RMN has to be fairly recent because Honor was posted to a frigate in 1882 pd so logically whatever happened to make them become completely obsolete to the RMN either occurred in the eighteen years between Honor being posted to the HMS Osprey and On Basilisk Station beginning or at least the retirement of frigates from RMN service was not finished until 1882 or later. In either case it has to be a fairly recent development in the setting when the main series begins.

Yes, it's fairly recent. (I think it's at least partially a result of the increased emphasis on missile combat, but I can't swear to that. It's also just not that much cheaper to build, maintain, and crew a frigate than it is a modern DD.) Don't forget that over the course of the series, we've also seen the BB and DN go the way of the dodo. I believe it'd be fair to say that the FG is to the DD what the DN is the the SD: "the same thing but worse," as it were, and whose savings in building and manpower costs aren't sufficient to justify its inferiority.

Certain sources within the admiralty have hinted that there might soon be but one class below current BC(L)-style designs, eliminating the DD as well, but that's another story.

Kufat wrote:

Roguevictory wrote:Whatever change or development rendered them pointless to a Navy like the RMN has to be fairly recent because Honor was posted to a frigate in 1882 pd so logically whatever happened to make them become completely obsolete to the RMN either occurred in the eighteen years between Honor being posted to the HMS Osprey and On Basilisk Station beginning or at least the retirement of frigates from RMN service was not finished until 1882 or later. In either case it has to be a fairly recent development in the setting when the main series begins.

Yes, it's fairly recent. (I think it's at least partially a result of the increased emphasis on missile combat, but I can't swear to that. It's also just not that much cheaper to build, maintain, and crew a frigate than it is a modern DD.) Don't forget that over the course of the series, we've also seen the BB and DN go the way of the dodo. I believe it'd be fair to say that the FG is to the DD what the DN is the the SD: "the same thing but worse," as it were, and whose savings in building and manpower costs aren't sufficient to justify its inferiority.

Certain sources within the admiralty have hinted that there might soon be but one class below current BC(L)-style designs, eliminating the DD as well, but that's another story.

Yeah the shift to missile focused combat being the cause does make sense in many ways. I thought that frigates were stated to be considered obsolete well before that shift occurred but perhaps I'm remembering wrong.

Roguevictory wrote:Yeah the shift to missile focused combat being the cause does make sense in many ways. I thought that frigates were stated to be considered obsolete well before that shift occurred but perhaps I'm remembering wrong.

The frigates were obsolete long before they were decommissioned, only when the RMN went on war footing, and decided to only have ships that are actually useful in a war, sufficient DD's and CL's were built to replace them.

Whitecold wrote:

Roguevictory wrote:Yeah the shift to missile focused combat being the cause does make sense in many ways. I thought that frigates were stated to be considered obsolete well before that shift occurred but perhaps I'm remembering wrong.

The frigates were obsolete long before they were decommissioned, only when the RMN went on war footing, and decided to only have ships that are actually useful in a war, sufficient DD's and CL's were built to replace them.

In that case the shift to missile focused warfare couldn't have been what made them obsolete since that occurred during the war. Which leaves us with no reasonable theory as to what caused them to become obsolete in the first place.